-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Florida Judge to Take-Two: No Bully until I get to play it first
- Thread starter Amused_To_Death
- Start date
AndoCalrissian
Member
He's officially gone off the deep end.Vibri said:
Teknopathetic
Member
He totally just wants to be the first kid on the block.
plagiarize
Banned
that is not going to cure everything though. for example, all the recent school shootings have been performed by adults. parents buy their kids violent games regularly without much knowledge of the content (ask any store clerk) and having legislated ratings hasn't stopped people in England crusading against video games.moku said:
Bully is a T rated game, which even legislation wouldn't prevent teenagers buying, and that is the game being discussed in court here.
the day they legislate movie ratings and make it illegal to release a film unrated is the day i support legislation of video game ratings. until that day i'm completely against it. the uk has both, hence i support it there, but it's far from a cure all.
thompson and others want the whole ESRB situation thrown out. what good is a legislated rating if it's picked by the industry itself? first time we get another oblivion or hot coffee rerating fiasco, the ESRB would be next.
these people don't want violent video games of any kind in the marketplace.
unfortunately, the most vocal critics tend to be the most extreme in their beliefs.
surely the fact that the person bringing the case to court against Rockstar calling their game a public nuisance HASN'T PLAYED THE GAME should be the end of it. the notion that Rockstar have to present the game in it's entirity to the judge is not only stupid, but flawed as we all know Rockstar's games are often only as violent as the person playing them.
i mean, Thompson is going to lose his case, without doubt, but it gives him a weapon. it gives him delaying tactics for any upcoming game. he doesn't like the game and wants to buy time? then do this near to release. **** up rockstar's launch plans and marketing entirely.
if thompson cannot prove his point with the materials that were available to him when he formed the opinion that the game was a public nuisance, then the case should be thrown out. the burden of proof is on him.
Galactic Fork
A little fluff between the ears never did any harm...
Wario64 said:
Yeah, but that's 100 hours Press Release time. So about 25 tops. So more than only 70% of GAFFERS.
I hate these arguments becuase I always end up looking like I'm on the side of these numb-nuts.plagiarize said:
I understand what your saying, and I have very littleproblem with it.
What I'm saying is this;
Make it so games that are rated "M" cannot be sold to minors, and "T" rated games cannot be sold to anyone under, say, 12. It will shut these idiots up, and give some actuall ground to the ESRB instead of thier fake-ass ratings that dont mean jack in the first place.
And to those who use the whole "parents" bullshit argument, in this day and age, its almost impossible to keep an eye on your kids 24/7. It would be nice for just an added level of help/security so your kid doesnt end up playing G.O.W
As for the whole other "We dont wantgames like this period" crap from these mouthpieces, dont worry, it will never happen. You have to find a middle ground, and banning the sale of uber-violent/sexual themed games to minors would go a long, long way to end all this crap.
The reason that's having trouble passing is becuase game makers(Take-two) know that the majority of those buying GTA are UNDER what would be an acceptable age.
If you cant walk into a porno shop under 18, cant drink, cant vote, basically sub-human, restrict sales of these games to minors.
If soeone wants to argue the movie-point, I feel there is a difference between warching something, and actually doing something. It effects the mind differently, and kids are impressionable as hell.
Its not an end all solution by any means, but it would help, ALOT.
sugarhigh4242
Banned
lets just go all the way and start selling R-rated movies in seedy adult "book"stores.
EDIT: i forgot this had a Teen rating. I guess PG-13 movies need to be restricted as well.
But think of teh Children!!!
EDIT: i forgot this had a Teen rating. I guess PG-13 movies need to be restricted as well.
But think of teh Children!!!
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
well.. doesnt affect me.. i can still buy it.
typhonsentra
Banned
:lolWario64 said:
B-B-Bomba!
Member
I like your photoshop man I found it very funny.
Jonnyboy117
Member
"I can't tell you what makes a game offensive, but I know it when I see it."
Joe Molotov
Member
MC Safety said:
But you gotta play through the bonus missions and extra stuff because that's where they hide all the nekkid wimmens!!
I am disturbed that there are actually people in this topic that support banning additional things from minors.
If you can drive a ****ing car as a minor you should be able to play a damn video game.
You trust 15 and 16 year olds with the ability to drive around a potential death machine but not watch some pixels on a screen?
FYI: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say if you're under 18 years old, you're not a citizen of the United States.
It does, however, say that all citizens of the U.S. are granted equal rights. So even laws banning minors from looking at porn are unconstitutional and anyone who truly supports the Constitution wouldn't support those laws either.
I guess I'm not surprised, everyone seems to ignore the Constitution these days anyway.
If you can drive a ****ing car as a minor you should be able to play a damn video game.
You trust 15 and 16 year olds with the ability to drive around a potential death machine but not watch some pixels on a screen?
FYI: Nowhere in the Constitution does it say if you're under 18 years old, you're not a citizen of the United States.
It does, however, say that all citizens of the U.S. are granted equal rights. So even laws banning minors from looking at porn are unconstitutional and anyone who truly supports the Constitution wouldn't support those laws either.
I guess I'm not surprised, everyone seems to ignore the Constitution these days anyway.
Beer Monkey
Member
The Bible really needs banned from sale to minors. You ever read the nasty shit in that thing?
Joe Molotov
Member
Xizer said:
The Constitution also doesn't say that Child Pornography is illegal. Yay, kiddie porn for all. You can't take away my constitutional rights!
Joe Molotov
Member
Xizer said:
What happend to them being US Citizens and having equal rights? Just get them to sign a contract like anyone else, and it's fine.
Xizer said:
You've got to be kidding me? You do realize what rights are actually guaranteed by the Constitution, don't you? Here's a quick summary:
Bill of Rights
Amendment I: Freedom of speech, religion, press, petition and assembly.
Amendment II: Right to bear arms and militia.
Amendment III: Quartering of soldiers.
Amendment IV: Warrants and searches.
Amendment V: Individual debt and double jeopardy.
Amendment VI: Speedy trial, witnesses and accusations.
Amendment VII: Right for a jury trial.
Amendment VIII: Bail and fines.
Amendment IX: Existence of other rights for the people. [The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.]
Amendment X: Power reserved to the states and people.
I see nothing in there guaranteeing the right of anyone to play a violent video game, drive a car, or look at porn, no matter what age you are. Where the violent video game legislation has run into trouble is that it has thus far been interpreted to be infringing upon the freedom of speech.
I typed out Amendment 9 so that there can be be no confusion with regards to its meaning. Amendment 9 was put in place to ensure that the Bill of Rights was not perceived to be the only rights granted to US Citizens, but rather that the Bill of Rights constitutes the protected rights of the people. All other rights are fair game to legislative restriction.
While the Constitution does not define citizenship as starting at the age of 18, it expressly defines 18 as the age in which a citizen obtains the right to vote. If the Constitution can limit such an apparently fundamental right, how can you argue against Congress' ability to pass laws pertaining to such rights and privileges not expressly protected and defined within the Constitution?
Kobun Heat
Member
Seriously.Jonnyboy117 said:
The problem here is that even if the judge comes out of chambers and rules that Bully is an a-ok swell jim dandy game, it's a win for Jack Thompson. Because apparently he's managed to get a judge to agree with him that the court has the constitutional authority to make content-based evaluations that determine whether or not the sale of this game should be legally regulated.
Well, it doesn't. It doesn't matter what the content of Bully is*, it is not within the jurisdiction of the court to stop or regulate its sale.
*unless of course it contains obscene sexual content which I don't even think Jack "Sims 2 Lets You Practice Undressing Children" Thompson is alleging here
I was nearly going to seriously respond to you, until I read this. You fail at Constitution total. Please try a lower difficulty level.mre said:
In related news...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=409796&in_page_id=1770
This is the 'newspaper' that went apeshit over other Rockstar stuff.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=409796&in_page_id=1770
This is the 'newspaper' that went apeshit over other Rockstar stuff.
Is it??
Amused_To_Death
Member
More updates, and more links to those of you too lazy to search for any...
The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101739.html
And The Miami Herald chimes in:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/15735379.htm
The Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/11/AR2006101101739.html
And The Miami Herald chimes in:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/business/15735379.htm
Bunch of ****ers. Leave our entertainment alone.
It's unbelievable how much time and money is lost in all this stupidity. There are looking for solutions and they are plenty!! Just a couple of examples:
- Have a government rating system doing the job instead of the ESRB
- Change ESRB mature rating age to 18.
How hard is that? No minor would legally play mature games. Voila! .
It's unbelievable how much time and money is lost in all this stupidity. There are looking for solutions and they are plenty!! Just a couple of examples:
- Have a government rating system doing the job instead of the ESRB
- Change ESRB mature rating age to 18.
How hard is that? No minor would legally play mature games. Voila! .
Apparently you have your interpretation of this amendment and I have mine. How about next time instead of simply dismissing soneone's view as irrelevant you actually refute it so as to "enlighten" the person you disagree with.Kobun Heat said:
However, perhaps I did not make myself clear. It was late and was at the end of the long day. Let me try to explain my view of the 9th Amendment is a more clear manner.
I hope that we can completely agree with the first part of my statement:
Are we agreed upon this? It's pretty much only a rewording of the Amendment.
As far as the rest of my statement, which is quoted above, let me use an example of two rights, one explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, and another that could perhaps be inferred from the 9th Amendment. For this example I'll use the right to freedom of speech and the right to walk around naked in the privacy of your own home (silly, I know).
Freedom of Speech is a right that has been heavily protected by the judcicial system. The courts have been extremely conservative in their interpretation of the 1st Amendment, and because of this people can pretty much say whatever they want to, with a few exceptions (slander, inciting violence, etc). This is what lets the nutjobs at the Westboro Baptist Church say what they say. This is a good thing.
While the 4th Amendment explicitly protects against unreasonable search and seizures, this has been more broadly interpreted as protecting the sanctity and privacy of a person's home. Within the confines of your own home you can do pretty much any legal activity you want to. Listen to music, have sex, walk around naked in your living room, etc. However, society has decided that there should be restrictions upon these activities, even when performed within your home. Your music volume has to be kept below a certain level, you can't boff your wife in your living room window with the blinds open and people walking by, and the same goes for standing naked in front of the window. Society has deemed these activities as inappropriate in the above cirumstances, legislation has been passed supporting society's position, and the judicial system has largely upheld this legislation.
Basically, what I was getting at with my post last night with regards to the 9th Amendment is that while citizens may have rights not explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, these other rights are not seen as invioble in the same way as those that are listed in the Bill of Rights.
All this is separate from my opinion on the topic that is actually being discussed. I think that Jack Thompson is an ass. I also think that the ESRB rating system should continue, and that these ratings should be used as guidlines for parents to determine whether or not a game is appropriate for their child.
nelsonroyale
Member
Ill be looking for his review with a keen eye...if a critic such as he can be brought round the game might be some fun
peace
peace
Ranger X said:
the topic of this title is no game, or some trivial charade and this only degrades the seriousness of the situation.
I normally don't care what games people play, they have a right to play what they want but Ive got history with this and I find it offensive and wrong.
ferrarimanf355
Banned
First things first, I live in Florida- I have the Florida Atlantic University logo on my Live gamertag for a reason- and I have to admit, this is pretty ****ing embarassing. As if the hanging chads weren't enough...
That being said, I doubt that JT will get his way. It sounds like the game encourages you to go to class and stay away from troublemaking. This could very well be JT's equivalent of Hitler invading Russia, and you all know how that turned out... (Oh God, did I invoke Godwin's Law?)
That being said, I doubt that JT will get his way. It sounds like the game encourages you to go to class and stay away from troublemaking. This could very well be JT's equivalent of Hitler invading Russia, and you all know how that turned out... (Oh God, did I invoke Godwin's Law?)
While it's nice that the judge understands he needs to see for himself, not put all his balls in IGN's review or whatever. But(!) this game is rated T, and has no killings. And it's open ended enough to be nice or cruel.
**** this shit. JT should be banned on gaf. ban him! jack thompson(just checking if he is)
**** this shit. JT should be banned on gaf. ban him! jack thompson(just checking if he is)
Joe Molotov
Member
Exis said:
I think he means he got picked on a lot in school.